“We’re going to pass spending bills, and they’re going to have a lot of restrictions on the activities of the bureaucracy,” McConnell said in an interview aboard his campaign bus traveling through Western Kentucky coal country. “That’s something he won’t like, but that will be done. I guarantee it.”…

McConnell risks overreaching if he follows through with his pledge to attach policy riders to spending bills. If Obama refuses to accept such measures, a government shutdown could ensue. Republicans bore much of the blame for last year’s government shutdown, which was prompted by conservative tactics McConnell opposed, and their fortunes rebounded only when the administration bungled the rollout of Obamacare.

But asked about the potential that his approach could spark another shutdown, McConnell said it would be up to the president to decide whether to veto spending bills that would keep the government open.

Obama “needs to be challenged, and the best way to do that is through the funding process,” McConnell said. “He would have to make a decision on a given bill, whether there’s more in it that he likes than dislikes.”

To repeat: Does anyone actually believe this? McConnell was one of the sharpest Republican critics of the “defund” strategy that produced a government shutdown last fall. Watch the clip below if you need your memory refreshed. He’s fond of saying about it, “There’s no education in the second kick of a mule,” i.e. the GOP paid a political price for the 1995 shutdown and then foolishly paid the same price again in 2013 (although the backlash was blunted by public outrage at the Healthcare.gov meltdown that was happening simultaneously). Quote: “I think we have fully now acquainted our new members with what a losing strategy that is.” He hates shutdowns almost as much as the people in the GOP’s donor class who bankroll him do.

And yet here he is, soothing conservatives who are leery of reelecting him by vowing to take the fight to Obama this time and make him cause a shutdown if he refuses to agree to Republican demands. And he wants you to believe he’s going to do this while prominent Republicans, including his pal Rand Paul, are declaring their candidacies in 2016. It’s the purest nonsense. To believe it, you need to believe that somehow, if Obama vetoes the sort of bill McConnell’s describing here, that the GOP will win the ensuing media war over who “really” caused the shutdown. Which party, do you suppose, will the press hold responsible? Whom did they hold responsible in 1995, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and went head to head with a Democratic president? The party that loves government, the bigger the better, or the one that doesn’t?

McConnell has a history of empty rhetoric about brinksmanship with Obama too. Remember this?

The Senate’s top Republican signaled Tuesday that he will seek to extract concessions from Democrats in exchange for lifting the nation’s debt limit in 2014, potentially foreshadowing a grueling fiscal fight during an election year.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that he “can’t imagine” that the debt ceiling increase will be a “clean” one — meaning that it will have no conditions attached to it. McConnell, a key negotiator on deals ending the debt ceiling standoff in 2011 and this year during the government shutdown, noted that past significant legislative agreements have been attached to such increases. He was skeptical that the House or the Senate would have an appetite to hand President Barack Obama a clean debt limit hike.

Two months later he voted for cloture on — ta da — a clean debt-ceiling hike, even though Harry Reid had more than enough votes without him to break a filibuster by Ted Cruz. And so we already know what’ll happen next year: McConnell and Boehner will pass a spending bill with some riders attached, Obama will veto it, a shutdown deadline will loom, and eventually McConnell will agree to a clean bill while promising to fight another day. How many times do you need to see this movie to know the plot?

It will, perhaps, not surprise you to learn that Kentucky Democrats are having a field day with the excerpt above, claiming that McConnell’s already cooking up new shutdowns for America. They know which side is helped by shutdown politics. And so does Mitch the Knife, which, again, is why this is an empty threat.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I think what’s worse than McConnell peddling such nonsense is that he actually seems to think his constituents will buy it and take it as a sign that he’ll suddenly become serious about “reining in” Obama when he’s never significantly done so in the past.

Of course, between the gullible Republican voter base (not all conservatives, but the party hack voters who don’t care enough and won’t vote Democrat), the Republican establishment and the Republican donor class, McConnell will, in all likelihood, skirt past this and simply walk back his words when push comes to shove.

All McConnell wants is to win reelection and get the chance to preside over a Republican majority in the Senate because “it’s his turn.” This mentality is sickening and if I were a Kentucky voter, I wouldn’t vote for a slime like him even if he paid the rest of my college tuition.

This is how the game is played, folks. Does anyone seriously believe that the moment McConnell becomes Majority Leader, he’d do anything other than try to craft his legacy as an effective Leader and one who brought “improvements” to the Senate’s handling of business? That’s what they all do.

Nobody wants to be remembered as the guy “who didn’t get anything done” and with the media and Obama constantly hammering the Republicans for “doing nothing” (never mind that stopping Obama is doing something), McConnell will assuredly cave.

Either voting for Grimes or writing in Thad Cochran as a protest. What do you all think?

ConstantineXI on August 20, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Grimes.

I know you’d feel covered in grime after doing so, but even if there’s a 0.01% chance that the Republicans can take the Senate while also losing McConnell, I’d run out into the street naked celebrating. Sure, the new leadership wouldn’t be much better, but at least the GOP would be making some progress.

Also, I’d imagine writing in “Thad Cochran” could possibly feel even worse than voting for a rubber stamp fascist Democrat.

Red state Democrats don’t often tout their vote for Obamacare. But that’s what Sen. Mark Pryor — one of the most vulnerable incumbents this cycle — is doing in Arkansas.

In a new ad, Pryor sits with his father, former Sen. David Pryor, and proudly says he “helped pass a law that prevents insurance companies from canceling your policy if you get sick, or deny coverage for preexisting conditions.”

DAVID: When Mark was diagnosed with cancer, we thought we might lose him.

MARK: My family and my faith helped me through the rough times.

DAVID: But you know what? Mark’s insurance company didn’t want to pay for the treatment that ultimately saved his life.

MARK: No one should be fighting an insurance company while you’re fighting for your life. That’s why I helped pass a law that prevents insurance companies from canceling your policy if you get sick, or deny coverage for preexisting conditions.

I was really hoping that only Thad Cochran would be retired this year but Mitch is making me hope for unkind things. This doesn’t even make sense, he is going to scare the establishment types which I would have thought were his only sure fired get in November and conservatives have already got his number so that isn’t going to work. This is beyond stupid.

Either voting for Grimes or writing in Thad Cochran as a protest. What do you all think?

ConstantineXI on August 20, 2014 at 3:24 PM

+1 for either

McConnell gives lying sacks of sh*t a bad name.

If Conservatives are going to be able to stay in the Republican Party, they are going to have to impose consequences when the Republican Party tries to destroy [or “crush” to use McConnell’s own words] them. There is no point staying in the Republican Party if every time someone tries to fight Democrats [two words that the Institutional Republicans cannot understand when used together in that order] an Institutional Republican stabs them in the back.

Why does everybody get hysterical over shutting down the government? The only ones who care are the people making money off the government such as government workers and welfare recipients. Nothing bad happened the last time.

If Conservatives are going to be able to stay in the Republican Party, they are going to have to impose consequences when the Republican Party tries to destroy [or “crush” to use McConnell’s own words] them. There is no point staying in the Republican Party if every time someone tries to fight Democrats [two words that the Institutional Republicans cannot understand when used together in that order] an Institutional Republican stabs them in the back.

Subotai Bahadur on August 20, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Already left. Establishment (R)’s will never get another vote from me. And the GOP, as long as they’re controlled by the establishment, can die in a fire slowly as far as I’m concerned.

Just a reminder, but tortoises have enormously high life spans and can live to well over 100 years old. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that McConnell wants to become the new Robert Byrd by reigning supreme in the Senate as either the Majority Leader and/or the president pro tempore. McConnell will become a fungus and will never leave!

So, Mitch must be the one who sends me those emails every day about We’re ready to defund Obamacare, or help John Boener in his battle against Obama or all the other lying, money-begging delete-without-opening pseudo-conservative crap that manage to make through my filters.

Good to know.

I hope the dear boy loses and I am indifferent to hostile to a redux of a Republican-controlled Senate. A progressive Republican leadership that thinks it got a thumbs up from the base will be a terrible thing.

Because the media tells us to, despite the obvious evidence in front of our very eyes that there was little to know impact on our daily lives and that we could probably easily live without 20% of our overlords.

This lying sack was the first to pillory Ted Cruz for trying to do the same damn thing.Now when it looks like pissed off conservatives might stay home and cost him his corrupt livelihood he changes his tune.What a dirtbag.Stay home conservatives and get rid of this anti- conservative liar!

You can only lose in brinkmanship when you advertise well in advance your intention to settle.
When you do that in negotiations with me, I will get far more than I ever started out intending to get.
If you are so scared of a government shut down what are you not willing to give me in exchange for keeping the government open? Well, think again, that and more is coming out of your hide.

And so we already know what’ll happen next year: McConnell and Boehner will pass a spending bill with some riders attached, Obama will veto it, a shutdown deadline will loom, and eventually McConnell will agree to a clean bill while promising to fight another day. How many times do you need to see this movie to know the plot?

Seeing mcconnell and knowing he may end up leading the senate really pushes me to want his to be a seat that’s lost….if it weren’t for reid the pederast punch drunk failure in everything except corruption that is.

You can only lose in brinkmanship when you advertise well in advance your intention to settle.
When you do that in negotiations with me, I will get far more than I ever started out intending to get.
If you are so scared of a government shut down what are you not willing to give me in exchange for keeping the government open? Well, think again, that and more is coming out of your hide.

astonerii on August 20, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Yup.

And from the same brilliant strategy guide, we get “impeachment is off the table.”

Hey idiot Allah. Did you think that maybe McConnell might have access to polling data that might be showing a huge GOP election(you know. WAVE) and that those elected might be more, oh I don’t know CONSERVATIVE. And what makes you(OH MIGHTY PUNDIT) think these newly elected senators will have any reason to vote for the mighty Mitch as majority leader. Widen your view Big A, your getting political tunnel vision. Both Boehner and McConnell know there is a good chance of both of them being deposed coming January 2015. It all depends on how big the GOP turnout is,and how many Dem’s will stay away from the voting both. 90 days Allah. 90 days.

I think it all depends on what the add on issues are. I think repeal of the Medical Device Tax would have a lot of Dem support. I think the XL pipeline approval would have a lot of Dem support. If the president sees any possibility his veto might be overridden, he will probably just sign it and say that he had come to support it or just ignore it. I imagine there are other issues with bipartisan support as well. Perhaps the Cap and Trade limits on CO2 shutting all the coal-fired power plants way before their time or limits on public land energy and mineral production.

It is not like the president hasn’t promised more flexibility after elections before./

To repeat: Does anyone actually believe this? McConnell was one of the sharpest Republican critics of the “defund” strategy that produced a government shutdown last fall. Watch the clip below if you need your memory refreshed. He’s fond of saying about it, “There’s no education in the second kick of a mule,” i.e. the GOP paid a political price for the 1995 shutdown and then foolishly paid the same price again in 2013 (although the backlash was blunted by public outrage at the Healthcare.gov meltdown that was happening simultaneously). Quote: “I think we have fully now acquainted our new members with what a losing strategy that is.” He hates shutdowns almost as much as the people in the GOP’s donor class who bankroll him do.

AP lives in a conservative echo chamber in which Ted Cruz’s moronic scheme to defund Obamacare makes sense. In the world we live in, conservatives are not a majority of the population. You have to be able to give an sensible defence of why the government is being shut down. There simply was no way we could convince anyone that the shutdown wasn’t because the Republicans being obstructionist. I know. I tried to defend Cruz at first, but I just couldn’t think any credible defense of Cruz’s strategy nor did I read one anywhere.

However, passing popular restrictions on Obama’s arbitrary spending decisions makes sense and will be popular with the public. This is why McConnell takes his positions. They are winning positions and I wish more people here cared about winning than about posturing.

(R)’s had control of both houses from 2000 through 2006, and the trajectory was exactly the same. Not as fast, but the same exact road.

So with the (D)’s you fly off the cliff at 120mph and with the (R)’s (“lead” by the establishment) you fly off the cliff at 80mph. You’re still dead, just a little slower.

Meople on August 20, 2014 at 4:04 PM

That’s not exactly true. Democrats controlled the Senate for the majority of the 107th Congress, due to the defection of Senator Jim Jeffords on June 6, 2001. The GOP still held the overall majority, though, since they controlled the House and Presidency.

I do get where you’re coming from, and while I want to see a balanced budget, I know that the Republicans have a FAR better record than the Democrats when it comes to deficits.

The Republicans who held majority control of the budgeting and appropriations process for FY 1996-2007 cut the average deficit by more than half, as compared to the average deficit during the nearly 50 years before them.

The Democrats who held majority control of the budgeting and appropriations process for FY 2008-2014 increased the average deficit to EIGHT TIMES the average deficit of their Republican predecessors.

And that is how and why the Democrat majorities since 1/3/2007 have WELL MORE THAN DOUBLED the total national debt in just over 7.5 years!

The vast majority of the reduction in deficits in the range you cite, 1996 – 2007 occurred PRIOR to 2000. Yes, the Conservatives that came into Congress in 1994 and 1996 DID cut the deficit and start to help the debt. But that was squashed in 2000 when the establishment took over both houses.

So, like I said, from 2000 through 2007 the trajectory was exactly the same as the Dims, just a little slower.

This is why McConnell takes his positions. They are winning positions and I wish more people here cared about winning than about posturing.

thuja on August 20, 2014 at 5:32 PM

What positions? Name one. Exactly what is McConnell going to attach to what that will be popular with the public? And why do you think McConnell was really lying when he told the press (and public), multiple times, “no more shutdowns.” Mule kick in the head?

The vast majority of the reduction in deficits in the range you cite, 1996 – 2007 occurred PRIOR to 2000. Yes, the Conservatives that came into Congress in 1994 and 1996 DID cut the deficit and start to help the debt. But that was squashed in 2000 when the establishment took over both houses.

So, like I said, from 2000 through 2007 the trajectory was exactly the same as the Dims, just a little slower.

Meople on August 20, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Pretty much. Using Newt’s 0% deficit spending years and attributing it to the later years of the party is totally dishonest. The reason that FY tide ended in 2007 is because they were spending money on just about everything they could think of. They were even spending the make believe money that the housing bubble was creating, as if it were the new basis of a prosperous economy. Deficits went down from their high, not because of fiscal restraint, but because a bubble economy increases federal revenue.

Look at the economy today, then look at federal revenue. It is record high today! Not really because of tax changes, although there is some of that, but because the economy is currently built upon the federal government and the fed handing money to already rich people who then get the privilege of paying the top marginal tax rate on that nearly free money.

The double-whammy of the Dot Com Bust and the 9/11 attacks significantly reduced employment, and therefore reduced payroll tax revenues and increased deficits. Plus the fact that we went to war on two fronts…

Is this the same guy who said his job was to make Barack Obama a one term President? I believe he may be the stupidest “leader” I’ve ever seen. Why he’s not talking about trying to find a way to work with the House and the President to do what’s right for the country is beyond me. I hope the Republicans vote to not allow him to be majority leader, if in fact he doesn’t screw up their chances to actually become the majority.

Where are the leaders in the Republican Party? If there are any, shut this guy up.

If Mc Connell believes any of what he is saying about a government shut down (I call bull****) then he needs to very publicly and loudly apologize to Ted Cruz for all the name calling and trashing he and the other RINOs did to him during the shutdown over Obamacare. Try that for starters Mitchy and we’ll see how the old vote goes for ya, huh?
Thought not.

The double-whammy of the Dot Com Bust and the 9/11 attacks significantly reduced employment, and therefore reduced payroll tax revenues and increased deficits. Plus the fact that we went to war on two fronts…

ITguy on August 20, 2014 at 6:33 PM

When they came into office with projected surpluses north of a few trillion dollars they could not help but start talking about where they were going to spend all that money.
Now, we gave them a few years post 9/11 to clean up their act. But they did not. By 2005 federal receipts were back on track but federal spending had increased significantly. I do not believe the wars were costing in excess of $500 billion a year. If you could show me where that is the case, I might be more amenable to your version of history.
Now, when you hit a road bump and your income goes down, most people cut spending. But in every single year the federal government spent more. Not one year of austerity or even a reasonable cut in increased spending.
That is why the conservatives abandoned the party in 2006 and allowed the already increased voter enthusiasm of the left to take over. Because the party was not in fact following its platform. Instead it took the Democratic platform of the 1990s and started enacting it. Thinking they were buying votes.

When they came into office with projected surpluses north of a few trillion dollars they could not help but start talking about where they were going to spend all that money.

Now, we gave them a few years post 9/11 to clean up their act. But they did not. By 2005 federal receipts were back on track but federal spending had increased significantly. I do not believe the wars were costing in excess of $500 billion a year. If you could show me where that is the case, I might be more amenable to your version of history.

astonerii on August 20, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Just to be clear, I am no fan of deficit spending. I’m just analyzing the data found here:

The projected surplus for FY 2001 was nowhere near a Trillion $. You must be thinking of a 10 year cumulative projection, but I don’t put much stock in those.

And even the “surpluses” of the last 90’s weren’t TRULY surpluses… they “borrowed” the Social Security Tax revenues and essentially wrote Intragovernmental IOUs which still add to our Total National Debt.

The last year when we had a TRUE SURPLUS, i.e. the last year when the Total National Debt actually went DOWN instead of UP, was…

… FY 1957!

We’ve now gone 57 consecutive Fiscal Years without a TRUE surplus and have increased the Total National Debt each and every one of those 57 consecutive years.

Now, to the point of the recession from the Dot Com Bust and 9/11 attacks, the Bush tax cuts, which came in two waves, helped cushion the blow and then turned the recession into a recovery.

After the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, the employment-population ratio hit an inflection point and started increasing instead of decreasing. Revenues which had fallen every year for 3 years turned around and increased 44% in just 4 years. Deficits which had been increasing started decreasing. The last budget passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President (passed in 2006 for FY 2007) had a deficit of less than $161 Billion, representing 1.1% of GDP.

Then the Democrats took control of the House and Senate and roughly tripled the deficit two years in a row, and by FY 2009 the deficit was over $1.4 TRILLION, representing 9.8% of GDP!

Give credit/blame where it is due.

When Obama became part of the majority party, and George W. Bush became part of the minority party, ON 1/3/2007, NOT 1/20/2009(!), Obama inherited a GOOD economy:
Dec 2006 Unemployment 4.4%
FY 2007 Deficit < $161 Billion

It was then-Senator Obama and his Democrat peers including Pelosi, Reid, and then-Senators Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc. who sent deficits skyrocketing.

As a Kentucky conservative, I strongly urge you not to help the Democrat win this election.
gocatholic on August 20, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Tell me which Dim you want to lose. You have two Dims running for the Senate in KY.

I know. I tried to defend Cruz at first, but I just couldn’t think any credible defense of Cruz’s strategy nor did I read one anywhere.

However, passing popular restrictions on Obama’s arbitrary spending decisions makes sense and will be popular with the public. This is why McConnell takes his positions. They are winning positions and I wish more people here cared about winning than about posturing.

thuja on August 20, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Your post is full of cognitive dissonance and ignorance. Have you paid any attention to anything since 1980? The Dims shut down FedGov several times during the Reagan admin. And Reagan was forced to deal with Tip O’Neil, a DimoKKKrap scum bag if there ever was one. Cruz’s shutdown was imminently defensible if you only tried a little bit. It wasn’t even hard. It has *not* redounded to the discredit of Cruz at all. It did redound to the discredit of the wacko birds and cowards like the Turtle, Little Miss Lindsey and the McCainiac. The Turtle is simply blowing smoke at us hoping to pull another corruptocrat win. I’d rather win the Senate without him, and couldn’t careless if the GOP wins the Senate with him as it won’t make much difference.

“We’re going to pass spending bills, and they’re going to have a lot of restrictions on the activities of the bureaucracy,” McConnell said in an interview aboard his campaign bus traveling through Western Kentucky coal country. “That’s something he won’t like, but that will be done. I guarantee it.”…

Mitch, It’s often said that there has to be some element of truth in any good comedy. I guess lies are different, you’ve told us a genuine laughing knee slapper without the slightest bit of truth in it.

The double-whammy of the Dot Com Bust and the 9/11 attacks significantly reduced employment, and therefore reduced payroll tax revenues and increased deficits. Plus the fact that we went to war on two fronts…

ITguy on August 20, 2014 at 6:33 PM

That doesn’t explain the (R)s in Congress from 2000 through 2006 spending like drunken sailors.

The reduction in tax revenue in 2000 doesn’t explain or even address the crazy spending the (R)’s did in those 6 years. No matter how try to spin it.

Meople, for what it’s worth, I am a TEA Party conservative, and vote for the most competent conservative candidate in Republican primaries.

But come November, I will vote for the Republican, even an establishment Republican, over a leftist “progressive” Democrat every time.

I make NO excuses for the establishment Republicans.

But I do note that Democrat majorities inherited a FY 2007 deficit which was 1.1% of GDP (significantly lower than the FY 1947-1995 average of 1.8% of GDP), and have now over the FY 2008-2014 Fiscal Years averaged deficits of 6.4% of GDP.

YES there is a difference between the two parties. Neither is GOOD, but DEMS ARE WORSE, BY FAR!

Meople, for what it’s worth, I am a TEA Party conservative, and vote for the most competent conservative candidate in Republican primaries.

But come November, I will vote for the Republican, even an establishment Republican, over a leftist “progressive” Democrat every time.

I make NO excuses for the establishment Republicans.

But I do note that Democrat majorities inherited a FY 2007 deficit which was 1.1% of GDP (significantly lower than the FY 1947-1995 average of 1.8% of GDP), and have now over the FY 2008-2014 Fiscal Years averaged deficits of 6.4% of GDP.

YES there is a difference between the two parties. Neither is GOOD, but DEMS ARE WORSE, BY FAR!

ITguy on August 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM

I’m not saying the Dims are any nobler than snail sh*t. But this article was about McConnell, which is not only an establishment (R) but is THE personification of everything that’s WRONG with the GOP today.

You can support them all you want, more power to you. I’m past that. I’m done voting for the lesser of two evils. I’m done holding my nose and voting for someone that hates me and is going to stab me in the back every chance they get.

You do what you want, but I’m done rewarding career corruptocrats with my vote, giving them even more years to f*ck me up the a$$.

Voting out Mc Connell in November would hit DC like the defeat of Eric Cantor! Conservatives and the TEA Party need to put fear into the RINOs that they can be ousted. Mc Connell going down to Grimes would remove him as senate majority or minority leader. Either way he would be out and that would send shockwaves to the RINOs after Mississippi.
I would ask the Conservatives of Kentucky to vote for Grimes, a small percentage could swing it. Remember Mississippi.